Strengthen our gun laws, or weaken them?

Rather than taking the Arizona tragedy for what it was, a lone crazy gunman, it will be conveniently misconstrued by both sides to justify either stronger or weaker gun ownership laws.

To both I say, be careful of what you ask for.

Surely the results could go either way, but we will not get a fair debate as long as the NRA is the moderator. I’d like to see this argument take place with politicians that are not taking cash bribes from the National Rifle Association. The “non gun” industry has no profits to share with the politicians, so the smart answer can only come from a nonpartisan, non-conflicted committee.

At the moment I support concealed carry laws, though even I cannot be sure that is best for society. John Boehner did the right thing for the wrong reason when he killed efforts to restrict ammunition sales. Wrong because he is in the pockets of the NRA, and that prompted his action. Not the people’s best interest.

I believe that if every bystander had a concealed gun in the Arizona tragedy, it would not have occurred. If street robbers were unsure of whether the intended victim was armed, perhaps fewer robberies would occur. If teachers and perhaps a half-dozen solid and trained older students were armed, perhaps we’d have fewer school shootouts. But in reverse, maybe it would cause the bad guys to go in blazing.

Even with strong gun laws, wackos will get guns. And the best way to protect society is with a well-thought out concealed carry law.

Though today’s politicians and their funky giveaways to corporate America may have given them reason to fear for their life, wanting a lesser-armed society may be some of their goal. Especially with so many unemployed who have given up playing by fair rules, I’d be scared too if I was in cahoots with industry.

Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Isn’t this a sad testimony of our perfect society?

Surely wackos will emerge in even the best of times, willing to give their own life for 15 minutes of fame. But this incident was NOT caused by either the Left or Right fringe… it was caused by one single wacko. And that is the price we pay for freedom.

That said, our corrupt politicians are another issue. They cannot continue removing food from tables and transferring our nation’s wealth to the elites without repercussions, yet they seem not to get the message. Or they do but feel they have room to push society further.

In a time when congress enjoys an approval rating of only 13%, what more can our politicians expect than massive unrest and eventual violence or revolution? Do they even give a damn? Or will they simply disarm the citizenry to try to protect themselves?

I don’t know all of these answers, but I pay my politicians to know. Unfortunately they are paid even more by Corporate America, so I lose representation.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, January 14th, 2011 at 2:00 am and is filed under Economy, Political Money. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Post navigation

13 Responses to Strengthen our gun laws, or weaken them?

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott‘s analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.[64] Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott’s conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott’s tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[65] However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence.

According to Fareed Zakaria the US has 90 guns per 100 Americans and our murder rate is 44 times that of Britain’s and its 5.6 guns.

So what is the answer?

First I’d like to get our politicians off the payroll of the NRA and let them make the right decision in the best interest of the country. I’d like less money spent on wars and more money spent on health care.

Joe, that’s a good point and I agree. But the same formula applies to the UK and their 5.6 guns per 100 people.

Honestly, I don’t know which way to lean. Part of me says if we totally eliminated guns, the crazies will use knives. And I cherish the intent of the 2nd amendment, especially as we head into an era when we will want politicians more afraid of the people than the other way around.

The genie is out of the bottle, guns are here until they are replaced (as guns replaced swords) by something else.

Putting this aside after a long time in private law enforcement, I have seen that if someone wants it they will get it so by banning them only the police and criminals have them and this will affect you like this; criminals want an easy life so will carry a gun to do their business show a gun for effect and with such limited police resources in most towns what are the chances of having to deal with the police other than unlucky or slim? If more people open carry then you push the criminals out of your area to somewhere that is weaker than you. So if you keep displacing the criminals then you can make life hard for them instead of them making life hard for you.

Please note that this will not cure the problem, just a moving of the goal posts but if more people stood up and thought of their neighboUrs instead of sitting around hoping someone else will deal with it then the criminals will have to work much much harder and most criminals will hurt you whether you fight or not, so if your going to get hurt why not hurt them back.

This is just a thought and by no means an encouragement to go out there and get them before they get you, well not without at least getting some physical training and legal instruction from a state acknowledged training centre and stay within the laws of your jurisdiction.

I never like to compare the USA to the UK or any other country. Simple because we are all different cultures with different laws and constitutions. I believe, as my police family and friends tell me they do, most violent crime is in some way drug related. The U.S. borders Mexico with a very weak and partially open border where drugs are funneled in by the kilotons. We can have gun rights, carry rights or have none of them. That won’t make a difference to the illegal drug demand and therefore won’t touch the supply side of it.

It seems that all places that have very high murder rates have one thing in common. They either produce or consume large amounts of illegal drugs. Since firearms have been invented and cannot be uninvented, firearms will always accompany the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of those drugs.

I look at it like this. If there is a total ban on guns then that may very save a few hundred lives that might have otherwise been murdered or accidentally killed but it will also cause the death of several thousand more that would have saved themselves or simply not been attacked in the first place.

Yea, it’s a complex problem with history and drugs playing a major part of it. We can’t undo history but we can switch our tactics on the drug war. And imagine this; in Egypt they are throwing rocks. In America we’d be shooting the opposition.

To Moneyed Politicians:\ I am in complete disagreement with your salacious and scandalous portrayal of an isolated incident. Had someone had a firearm to stop the Loughner guy maybe this wouldn’t of happened. In the UK violent crime with and w/o guns has increased 4 fold. I am 1000% percent behind the 2nd amendment as well as all the others and will not allow your fears to disarm the populace. How much have you read on the 2nd amendment? Did you know it is the main reason why the revolution started in Boston when patriots found out the British governer had destroyed their gunpowder stocks and not the Tea Party BS we hear about? This is the problem with America today… we know little of the past and how hard our fathers fought to make sure we had these rights. People have always been in danger of being shot…would you have us destroy our knives too? There are actually politicians in Britain that are calling for a ban on some tools in the home… this is where you would have us go…I am a free American restrict yourself please, you are a cowardly tyrant sir, I take the bill of rights as literal!!!

Much as I dislike NRA (Vin Suprynowicz called them the largest gun control organization in the United States), I believe your opinion about them money-wise is a bit off. They represent millions of members each contributing small amounts of dollars, and their aim is generally to stop legislation rather than rent-seeking. This is far different than contributions by the banksters, or by military contractors.

Are you suggesting the cash bribes (campaign contributions) are somehow less noble than cash bribes from say the Violence Policy Center, or say Planned Parenthood?
Members pay their dues to these organizations to represent them in promoting legislation that is important to them. I imagine there might even be some that represent law enforcement. And then of course there are some that might be bigger than the NRA. Such as unions?

Cash bribes are cash bribes from whoever, and whenever they are given to elicit political favors from politicians who are supposed to act in the best interest of the nation, nobleness plays no role. Only corruption does.

Search

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Archives

Save 50%, Free shipping

Click on the book for that page, if you really want to know why our nation's economy went into the toilet, this book will help you follow the special-interest money that promises even more of the same.
($11.95 with shipping, or free to libraries) or download a free copy (.pdf HERE) or (.doc HERE) or (.mobi HERE) or (.epub HERE)
Thanks much to Robert Hallsey, who does independent publishing (rhallsey@yahoo.com)

Subjects

Subjects

On Health Care….

“It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of energy that can
go into a project just to avoid doing the right thing. The best,
simplest, least costly, most effective thing we could do is
expand what has been working so well for years, Medicare.
You get sick, you get care, and the caregiver gets paid.
Nothing could be simpler. But follow the money and you’ll
find why the politicians don’t like it a bit. They get their money from insurance interests.” Jack Lohman

On health care….

"America will always do the right thing, but only after everything else fails." Winston Churchill

On Politicians….

"As a business owner, if I had an employee giving company assets to outsiders in exchange for money on the side, I'd fire him. Perhaps even have him jailed. In any other venue we call it bribery, payola and theft. But in the American political system, we call it freedom of speech. We don't jail them, we re-elect them." Jack Lohman

On Energy….

"Since the Arabic OPEC conspiracy has eliminated all pretense of a capitalistic free market, the U.S. should create its own energy supply with a taxpayer-funded exploration division. Contract it to the lowest private bidder, if need be, but introduce some real competition into the system." Jack Lohman

On Elections….

"Unfortunately our political system has fallen, not to the Republicans or Democrats but to the corporate interests that fund their elections. And that is not going to change in November. The only real solution is a complete turnover at the state and national level. We need voter-initiated term limits." Jack Lohman

On Privatization….

"Privatization is the political preference because private corporations can give campaign contributions and government entities can't. We are paying ten times the dollars for Blackwater, Bechtel and Halliburton to perform the same functions our troops could be performing in Iraq. Why? Because the US Army cannot give campaign contributions. Get the political money out of the system, and if privatization continues because it makes more sense than creating another government bureaucracy, then fine. But if it continues because political cash is flowing, then it likely wasn't needed in the first place." Jack Lohman

On HSA’s ….

"It is well known that most medical expenses come in the later years. What do you think the CEOs of your HSA are going to do when you start needing this more expensive care? They are going to start denying it, just as they are today. That’s why there are no HSAs for the elderly. If you plan to be one of us someday, you best ensure that Medicare remains alive and well." Jack Lohman